WooHoo! More idiots running the gub'ment.

That's how I used it. The people in the group/athiests determine what those values are to them. In the context which I used it I needn't consider it to have any valuse respective to me. Thank God, I am not in the group.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Do you want to know my values. I am an atheist, probably as hard core as they come. Let me tell you about me and you can tell me all about my terrible atheist values.I have been married 5 years. Yes it is my second marriage. I have been faithful to both of my wives. The idea of cheating never has been a serious thought.I have a 27 year old adopted son, that my ex and I adopted when he as 12. He lived in a childrens home that my worked at. He is mentally impaired and currently lives in a group home. This is not meant religiously but he is a huge part of my heart and soul.My wife and I are currently doing respite foster care.I am not employed(wife has great job), but I volunteer 4 days a week at the local public school.We give generously to needy causes; Red Cross, local organizations and Lambano Sanctuary in South Africa.So don't sneer at me about your idea about atheist values. You are a self-righteous ass. You know nothing about me and my values or any other atheist. So why don't you just shut the fuck up, before you imply anyone here is immoral or evil.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

That was nearly written in English. What does it mean?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

We're glad you aren't we'd be afraid you'd give atheists a bad name and make us look immoral

Buzz, just to enlighten you. Atheism just means a non-belief in supernatural beings/entities aka god(s). As a result, atheism by its very definition has no moral/ethical dogma/ideaology/meaning by itself. I assume this is what Theodoric and Rhavin are implying.This does not mean that atheists are ammoral or immoral (I hope you know what the difference between the two are) people. Most atheists adopt a form of humanism on which to base there own personal ethics framework on.For example, the reason murder is considered wrong by humanists is because ultimately it is destructive to the human species. The religious fundamentalist's reason why murder is wrong is merely because some supernatural entity says so. Thats it. Hmm, which one is a better reason of why murder should be considered wrong. I go with the first one.Humanism is a moral framework which, like I said above, is adopted defacto by many atheists. Humanism has many forms and definitions but the underlying theme is a heavy emphasis on human intellect, logic and rational rather than unsubstantiated and often irrational religious belief and faith on which to base human values and norms.One is not required to be an atheist to be a humanist. There are many agnostics and even theists who were and are humanists i.e. Albert Schweitzer, Charles Darwin, Ghandi, Albert Einstein, Spinoza, Pope John XXIII (the current pope is a racist idiot IMHO), etc. However, I have yet to find a fundamental Christian who advocates humanism. I think a Fundamental Christian Humanist is an oxymoron.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

And they differ from person to person. Of course not, you're not in the group. Let me get this straight: Do you or do you not know what values athesits hold? Yes or no, please. This sentence says you think you do (other from not believing in god part, of course, which is not a value), yet when asked for them you say you don't. And if you don't know, then you can't know if it is so terrible to belong to the group or not. Also, could you explain the yes or no after you've stated it? In case of a yes, please tell us the values. In case of a no, then why did you give the impression that you knew what those values were, and that they were terrible values to have.

This mindless middle that you've assimilated me in to is characteristic of people who just shy away from conflict. These are people pleasers who are more afraid of being offensive than anything else.I don't fall in to any of those categories. How many times have I excoriated religious folk on this forum? How many times have I had scathing criticism of the anti-religious folk?1. I'm not seeking their approval or disapproval
2. I'm not meekly tip-toeing around afraid the rock the boat
3. I attempt to view it fairly and not group people together by virtue of association, but rather look at individual (ine)qualities.
4. My reasons aren't mindless. My reasoning is specific, not just ways to "keep the peace." Nonsense, because I never said atheism. You just assumed it and immediately went on the defensive. You're now posturing to defend your worldview that was never in jeopardy to begin with.I said anti-religion very clearly. To be anti-religious you have to be an atheist, but you don't have to be anti-religious in order to be an atheist. Same concept is Londoners are British, but not all Brits are Londoners. I know. It's not about neutrality, it's about reality. And the reality is that it just so happens that all atheists aren't anti-religious who are drunk on the blood of Christians, and it just so happens that all religionists aren't cooking up atheist-stew. Is that neutrality or is that probably more closely akin to the way things really are? Let's not be coy. The very basic nature of atheism is disbelief. Many, if not most, simply disbelieve and provide compelling reasons for that disbelief. However, an entire ideology has in fact been engendered around the umbrella of atheism. That isn't an indictment on atheism, just the fact that some people use it as justification for their anti-religious works.How do I know? Look at all the blowhards in the anti-religion movement who easily are louder than all the religious apologists combined. They proselytize in the same manner as their inglorious, religious counterparts. They hold conferences on disbelief, they form churches of disbelief, they actively seek to subvert religion. Nothing about that is simple disbelief.Atheism is a non-belief. Yet the anti-religious atheists seem to look upon it as if to a God in the form of believing.It just echo's my point that, like anything else, people find justifications for anything. Within religion or irreligion some people misuse it. They twist and contort for their own ends. But to say that all atheists and all religious people are crazy and fanatical is propaganda all its own.You can call that me being in the "mindless middle," I call it common sense. This is common sense and has nothing to do with appeasement or placating, or finding middle ground, or seeking a compromise. It's about facts. The simple fact is that on any side of a debate there exists people who manipulate their basic ideological premise.What reasonable person would disagree with that? Only people with bias would argue that point because they feel it is a personal slight against them. Why is that? Because they're too wrapped up in the "Us vs Them" dichotomy and have lost objectivity. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Yes, and I very clearly went out of my way to explain. That all depends on why they killed in the first place -- the motive involved. Atheism itself is a non-belief (at least it is supposed to be). However, for the anti-religious it is so much more.It's the same thing for anything really. If someone happened to be a Christian and killed someone versus a Christian killing someone specifically with the notion of their Christianity being the focus are two entirely different things.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Nonsense. You could be a deist or agnostic and be anti-religious.- Oni

First, there is no such thing as "non-belief," that is a made up term. It refers to nothing at all.I live my life with the knowledge that if I drop something it will fall, not that a supernatural entity will suspend it in mid-air. That's what atheism is, nothing more nothing less.And anti-religious people don't have to be atheist, they could be deist or agnostic. So your whole position is irrelevant.

Or a theist - there's nothing that says a theist has to be religious. Agreed

Uh, how is that not synonymous? Right, so to be anti-religious is obviously a step further than mere non-belief. Perhaps you're right that atheism is not a prerequisite. After examining how an agnostic or a deist could be anti-religious, I would agree. I therefore retract that.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

In some cases, yes, but not always. Some of them (and I count you in this subset) actually believe that they are being objective, when they are doing nothing of the sort.Objectivity requires adherence to facts and logic and nothign else. Not opinions, not compromise. When we see the shape of the Earth from space, we know that obviously the "truth" is not somewhere in the "middle" of the flat-Earth and round-Earth debate.As an aside, the Midless Middle in politics brings us political drift - when everyone agrees that the correct course of action is "somewhere in the middle," all one side needs to do to swing things their way is to become even more extreme, moving the "center" farther in their direction. Irrelevant. I;m not claiming that you're biased. I;m claiming that you're not objective. In this thread you;ve made unsupported statements suggesting that "neither side is right." You took a "middle" position, without actually analyzing any facts at all - and it bit you in the ass, because your statements were factually wrong.Irrelevant. These have nothing whatsoever to do with what I;m saying you do. "Fairness" is not objective. Fairness is the very definition of the Mindless Middle.Sometimes it's acceptable to withold "taking sides," particularly when there is insufficient information to make such a judgment with a reasonable degree of certainty that the conclusion will be accurate.But "being fair" has absolutely nothing to do with being objective. See the definition I posted earlier. Your reasons are irrelevant. Your argument is mindless, because it contains to analysis of fact. It's an unsupported statement. Liar. See the following quotes from the message I initially responded to: You were directly responding to a comment regarding atheism, and you specifically referred to "despots seeking a religion-free utopia." What else ycould that have meant, Hyro? Do you think I'm an idiot, or just too lazy to look back at what you actually said? Your furious backpedalling won't make your comments any more objective. This has nothign to do with the comments you made earlier. It's a red herring. You claimed, and I quote, You claimed that the number of people killed "under the pretense of religion" is outnumbered by recent mass-murders motivated by a vision of a "religion-free utopia."That specific statement was false. It was also a Mindless Middle arguemnt, because it sought to paint "both sides" as guilty, yet provided no facts at all to support any such assertion.Atheism contains no ideology! It's simply a lack of belief (for some, an active dis-belief) in deities. THAT IS ALL. I;m used to repeating this to people like Buz or ICANT, but you should know better, Hyro. There is absolutely no coherent ideology surrounding atheism. There's no Great Book of Atheism, no dogma, no clergy, no central philosophy. Atheists don't believe in god(s) for all manner of different reasons, ranging from logical exclusion of the unevidenced, opposition to the idea of a "higher power," a belief in "spritis" but not deities, and a thousand and one others.Once again, you're just being absurd. And another factually wrong Mindless Middle statement. You're on a roll, Hyro. You've once again claimed that "both sides do this and are equally wrong," without actually qualifying such a statement with facts or evidence or even a logical analysis of the tactics of each.You can't even defend yourself against a claim of a Mindless Middle argument without making another such argument. Pathetic. Who is "they," Hyro? I've never seen a "church of disbelief." Have you" Where? I;ve never met an atheist on the street handing our Jack Chick-esque pamphlets seeking to subvert the faithful.Are you allergic to evidence, objectivity, or just logic? What? THis stament is meaningless. You mean that a subset of atheists persue atheism with a ferver equivalent to those who zealously worship their god(s)? What does theis have to do with the argument at hand?It seems you've reached the point of just ranting and spouting red herrings.You still haven't shown how your statement: was not an unsupported attempt to cast both "sides" of an arguemtn in an equal light. You;ve still failed to show any form of analysis or present and facts to support the statement that anti-religious regimes have been just as bad or worse than religious ones, and that those regimes were motivated by atheism in the same way that the religious ones were motivated by their specific faiths.All you;ve done is add more Mindless Middle arguments. Good job, Hyro. You;re making this easy for me. And if that had been all that you said, we wouldn;t be having this conversation. Nobody claimed that all of anyone was crazy and fanatical. Apparently you're well-versed in teh creation of Straw Men as well as Mindless Middle arguments. Good for you!But I'm curious - precisely and specifically which central tenet of atheism is ever "twisted and contorted" for some negative purpose? I find it difficult to believe that a position defined only by a lack of any belief in deities can possibly be "twisted" to any end at all. Common sense is not rational or logical.Most of all, common sense is not objective.Your "common sense" is worse than useless here. YOU HAVE NOT PRESENTED A SINGLE FACT TO SUPPORT YOUR COMMENTS IN THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION! Do not try now to claim that your positions have anything to do with evidence! You haven't the faintest clue whay objectivity is, Hyro, as you've amply demonstrated here.TO be objective, you would've needed to present a fact to support your arguments.You haven't presented even one. That's rather telling.

That would make one a mindless mechanical robot.

Onifre writes

quote:

---

First, there is no such thing as "non-belief," that is a made up term. It refers to nothing at all.

​

I live my life with the knowledge that if I drop something it will fall, not that a supernatural entity will suspend it in mid-air. That's what atheism is, nothing more nothing less.

---

I respectfully disagree with you. Yes, non-belief is a made up word, just like every other word in the English language that describes a thought or train of thought. A word has to start somewhere before it becomes commonly accepted and widely understood. And it is also used to replace the two sentences you had to use to convey the train of thought. So, next time instead of wasting bandwidth trying to explain to someone what your thoughts on the matter are, all you have to do is use the term "non-belief".Non-belief refers to the absent of belief in the supernatural. It is used to emphasize the fact that non-believers aren't necessarily anti-religious.It is sort of like when I say I'm not a lawyer to emphasize the fact that while I'm not a lawyer I'm not necessarily anti-lawyer... never mind.You get the idea.

quote:

---

And anti-religious people don't have to be atheist, they could be deist or agnostic. So your whole position is irrelevant.

---

Religion is generally used as short for organized religion. I know plenty of theists who have very negative attitude towards organized religion.Edited by Species8472, : No reason given.